At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

I don't think the first premise can be supported--or if it can, it can be supported on the exact same grounds as "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. "

I don't think so. The idea is that if something is uncaused, then it comes from nothing, which is absurd. However, the only things that "come from" are things that come into being, and have a finite past. However, things that don't begin to exist don't pop into existence out of nothing, so the thing in question may or may not have a cause. So, the premise "everything that exists has a cause" really couldn't be supported in the same way.

In either case (it being unsupported, or the more broad claim being equally supported), the argument then fails.

At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

I don't think the first premise can be supported--or if it can, it can be supported on the exact same grounds as "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. "

I don't think so. The idea is that if something is uncaused, then it comes from nothing, which is absurd. However, the only things that "come from" are things that come into being, and have a finite past. However, things that don't begin to exist don't pop into existence out of nothing, so the thing in question may or may not have a cause. So, the premise "everything that exists has a cause" really couldn't be supported in the same way.

Does anything ever 'begin to exist'?

(Serious question)

In either case (it being unsupported, or the more broad claim being equally supported), the argument then fails.

At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

I don't think the first premise can be supported--or if it can, it can be supported on the exact same grounds as "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. "

I don't think so. The idea is that if something is uncaused, then it comes from nothing, which is absurd.

Is it, though? I mean, I grant that things like quantum fluctuations are not absolutely confirmed--but they aren't discomfirmed, either.

However, the only things that "come from" are things that come into being, and have a finite past. However, things that don't begin to exist don't pop into existence out of nothing,

Well, they might. But even ignoring that--all inductive arguments about this rest on the fact that all things we have experience of don't pop out of nothing--and have a beginning inasmuch as the universe does.

so the thing in question may or may not have a cause. So, the premise "everything that exists has a cause" really couldn't be supported in the same way.

At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

I don't think the first premise can be supported--or if it can, it can be supported on the exact same grounds as "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. "

I don't think so. The idea is that if something is uncaused, then it comes from nothing, which is absurd.

Is it, though? I mean, I grant that things like quantum fluctuations are not absolutely confirmed--but they aren't discomfirmed, either.

They are pretty confirmed. However, they don't come from nothing, they pop into existence out of a background space, a vaccum.

However, the only things that "come from" are things that come into being, and have a finite past. However, things that don't begin to exist don't pop into existence out of nothing,

Well, they might. But even ignoring that--all inductive arguments about this rest on the fact that all things we have experience of don't pop out of nothing--and have a beginning inasmuch as the universe does.

so the thing in question may or may not have a cause. So, the premise "everything that exists has a cause" really couldn't be supported in the same way.

At 3/31/2014 6:07:04 AM, Installgentoo wrote:The common atheist objection is to go crazy and deny causality.

But then when it's talking about free will, they invoke causality and show how it denies free will. ;P

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

I don't think the first premise can be supported--or if it can, it can be supported on the exact same grounds as "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. "

I don't think so. The idea is that if something is uncaused, then it comes from nothing, which is absurd. However, the only things that "come from" are things that come into being, and have a finite past. However, things that don't begin to exist don't pop into existence out of nothing, so the thing in question may or may not have a cause. So, the premise "everything that exists has a cause" really couldn't be supported in the same way.

Does anything ever 'begin to exist'?

(Serious question)

Well in an Aristotelian sense, which the KCA used to be based off of, cuz it was a Muslim argument, for something to begin to exist is for matter to have a certain form.

So that's why it's called hylemorphism. A chair has the form of a chair, and a certain stuff that makes it up. When you separate the two, the "chair" doesn't exist anymore. It's a very commonsensical type of realism.

But then again, this is kindof dealing with creation, and Aristotle didn't have much to say considering he thought the universe was eternal...

In either case (it being unsupported, or the more broad claim being equally supported), the argument then fails.

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

B-series because most people have no clue about that.

Also atheists typically attack causality arguing via David Hume or some such nonsense. I don't buy it, but yeah... that seems to be somewhat strong.

However, if, as you accept, the world is a mental construct of a mind, wouldn't that mean that ultimately a mind is behind the beginning of the thought?

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

I assume you're referring to the problem of induction. Whether you buy it or not has no bearing on the fact it's rock-solid as an objection.

OT; the whole thing is only a problem if you look at it from an internal temporal perspective. Since time (or at least our time) is part of the universe, it seems highly unlikely that we can meaningfully extend causal relationships of this type beyond the boundaries of the universe. Since the universe can't be outside of itself (by definition, really), we have no reason to extend causal arguments or objections to whatever substrate or otherwise it may have emerged 'from'.

As with all these classical arguments for god, it stems from people getting confused about meaning.

At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

Wouldn't a b-time view eliminate the premise that the universe had a beginning? It would be in the realm of God by always existing.

The universe would have a beginning like a ruler has a first inch, but it is an eternal ruler lol

B-time is subjective meaning the ruler can only indicate order relative to another event. Either way whether A-time or B-time the only way KCA can be logically sound is if the cause for the Universe is outside of time. When that happens it raises more questions than it answers:

1. If God is not on the ruler (of time), how can I fundamentally know what caused the universe? (does causation even require time?)

2. If something can exist outside of time, why can't other things exist outside of time?

3. If multiple of things can exist outside of time (for eternity) how could i evaluate which of those things may have caused the universe or other events in time?

4. How do I know even if the things that gave arise to Universe/Time even were intelligent? (You can use the infinite regression to answer that, but if you do a regression to a point outside of time itself then it means KCA is completely invalid because it requires time. (The universe BEGAN))

KCA is fun for sparking philosophical discussion, but it is much too simplistic and arbitrarily uses the beginning of the universe as a starting point, which may or may not be the true starting point.

At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

The entire theory presumes everything has a beginning, and that infinity is a logical impossibility. In reality, time itself is an artificial construct designed to measure change, and depends upon the frame of reference in question, thus there can be no objective beginning or end for Time, for what might be a beginning for reference frame A might be nowhere near a beginning for reference frame B, and time requires at least 2 frames of reference to exist. Time itself is open to redefinition by frame of reference, and as such, anyone claiming that time has a beginning neglects the true nature of time, which has no physical existence outside mathematical models.

Honestly, I prefer McTaggart's C-series. I think it's more of an accurate description of the universe, because time itself doesn't exist physically.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer

At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

The entire theory presumes everything has a beginning, and that infinity is a logical impossibility. In reality, time itself is an artificial construct designed to measure change, and depends upon the frame of reference in question, thus there can be no objective beginning or end for Time, for what might be a beginning for reference frame A might be nowhere near a beginning for reference frame B, and time requires at least 2 frames of reference to exist. Time itself is open to redefinition by frame of reference, and as such, anyone claiming that time has a beginning neglects the true nature of time, which has no physical existence outside mathematical models.

Honestly, I prefer McTaggart's C-series. I think it's more of an accurate description of the universe, because time itself doesn't exist physically.

replace "theory" with "argument." I was referring to Kalam's argument, not B-theory, sorry about that.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer

At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

I don't think the first premise can be supported--or if it can, it can be supported on the exact same grounds as "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. "

I don't think so. The idea is that if something is uncaused, then it comes from nothing, which is absurd.

Is it, though? I mean, I grant that things like quantum fluctuations are not absolutely confirmed--but they aren't discomfirmed, either.

They are pretty confirmed. However, they don't come from nothing, they pop into existence out of a background space, a vaccum.

But Kalaam is speaking of causality, not the objection of ex nihilio. And in that sense, they are "uncaused".

Why not believe we are a fluctuation in that which is beyond the universe, in the same sort of manner as a vacuum fluctuation?

However, the only things that "come from" are things that come into being, and have a finite past. However, things that don't begin to exist don't pop into existence out of nothing,

Well, they might. But even ignoring that--all inductive arguments about this rest on the fact that all things we have experience of don't pop out of nothing--and have a beginning inasmuch as the universe does.

so the thing in question may or may not have a cause. So, the premise "everything that exists has a cause" really couldn't be supported in the same way.

Are there any other things that "don't have a cause"?

Necessary things that don't begin to exist.

Right, but besides the theist god, what else meets that criteria?

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

It's an argument from ignorance and it presents a false dichotomy. From the fact that we don't have a causal explanation for the beginning of the universe, it does not logically follow that God is the cause.

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

I don't think the first premise can be supported--or if it can, it can be supported on the exact same grounds as "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. "

I don't think so. The idea is that if something is uncaused, then it comes from nothing, which is absurd. However, the only things that "come from" are things that come into being, and have a finite past. However, things that don't begin to exist don't pop into existence out of nothing, so the thing in question may or may not have a cause. So, the premise "everything that exists has a cause" really couldn't be supported in the same way.

The day before you posted this, you argued just the opposite, and now it's absurd?

Here is what you said:

"If something cannot come from nothing, then this means there is something about nothing with entails a restriction, which is impossible (how can "nothing" have restrictions?). Since nothing has no restrictions, then there is no reason to think something couldn't pop up out of nothing." - Rational_Thinker9119, post #108 in "Why is There Something Rather than Nothing" thread.

At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

I don't think the first premise can be supported--or if it can, it can be supported on the exact same grounds as "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. "

I don't think so. The idea is that if something is uncaused, then it comes from nothing, which is absurd. However, the only things that "come from" are things that come into being, and have a finite past. However, things that don't begin to exist don't pop into existence out of nothing, so the thing in question may or may not have a cause. So, the premise "everything that exists has a cause" really couldn't be supported in the same way.

The day before you posted this, you argued just the opposite, and now it's absurd?

Here is what you said:

"If something cannot come from nothing, then this means there is something about nothing with entails a restriction, which is impossible (how can "nothing" have restrictions?). Since nothing has no restrictions, then there is no reason to think something couldn't pop up out of nothing." - Rational_Thinker9119, post #108 in "Why is There Something Rather than Nothing" thread.

At 3/30/2014 7:23:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I think appealing to B-Theory is a strong one. Which one do you think is the best one?

I don't think the first premise can be supported--or if it can, it can be supported on the exact same grounds as "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. "

I don't think so. The idea is that if something is uncaused, then it comes from nothing, which is absurd. However, the only things that "come from" are things that come into being, and have a finite past. However, things that don't begin to exist don't pop into existence out of nothing, so the thing in question may or may not have a cause. So, the premise "everything that exists has a cause" really couldn't be supported in the same way.

The day before you posted this, you argued just the opposite, and now it's absurd?

Here is what you said:

"If something cannot come from nothing, then this means there is something about nothing with entails a restriction, which is impossible (how can "nothing" have restrictions?). Since nothing has no restrictions, then there is no reason to think something couldn't pop up out of nothing." - Rational_Thinker9119, post #108 in "Why is There Something Rather than Nothing" thread.